Group items tagged

Cooperation Law for a Sharing Economy A new sharing economy is emerging-but how does it fit within our legal system? Time for a whole new field of cooperation law. Document Actions Email Print Feed  Share by Janelle Orsi posted Sep 23, 2010 Residents of cohousing communities could benefit from the advice of "sharing lawyers." Photo by Joe Behr What do you call a lawyer who helps people share, cooperate, barter, foster local economies, and build sustainable communities? That sounds like the beginning of a lawyer joke, but actually, it's the beginning of a new field of law practice. Very soon, every community will need a specialist in this yet-to-be-named area: Community transactional law? Sustainable economies law? Cooperation law? Personally, I tend to call it sharing law. We need sharing lawyers to help people like Lynne: Lynne lives in an urban cohousing community and shares ownership of a car with two neighbors. Every day, she fluidly shares, borrows, and lends (rather than owns) many household goods, tools, electronics, and other items. She is a member of a cooperative grocery, through which she receives significant discounts in exchange for putting in a few monthly work hours. She grows vegetables on an empty lot and sometimes sells the veggies to neighbors. She has a successful rooftop landscaping business, which she launched using 20 microloans and investments from friends and family. She often barters, doing odd jobs in exchange for goods and services. She also owns a 5 percent share of a hot springs retreat center outside of town, which she acquired through sweat equity. With the help of sharing, cooperation, and collaboration, Lynne has managed to craft an affordable, comfortable lifestyle, put her skills to use, do varied and self-directed work, and live/work in a supportive community. She has "financed" property ownership and launched a thriving business off of the traditional financial and banking grid. Lawyers Are Going to Have a B

Occupy Wall Streeters are right about skewed economic rewards in the United States By Josh Bivens and Lawrence Mishel | October 26, 2011 The Occupy Wall Street movement has captured much the nation's attention with a clear message: A U.S. economy driven by the interests of business and the wealthy has generated increasingly unequal economic outcomes where the top 1 percent did exceptionally well but the vast majority did not do well at all. According to the data, they're fundamentally right. This paper presents 12 figures that demonstrate how skewed economic rewards (in income, wages, capital income, and wealth) have become in the United States. These figures, most of which cover 1979 through 2007 (prior to the recession) generally break out trends for the top 1 percent, the next richest 9 percent, and then the bottom 90 percent of households or earners. While income growth at the very top-the richest 1 percent and above-has been truly staggering, incomes at roughly the 90th percentile and above (the richest 10 percent) have generally at least matched the rate of economy-wide productivity. It is below the 90th percentile where one really sees the potential fruits of economic growth (as measured by economy-wide productivity) failing to reach American households. An economy that fails to cut in 90 percent of American households on a fair share of economic growth is one that needs serious reform. As the figures show: The top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income-59.9 percent of the gains from 1979-2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share-36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent. The patterns are similar for wages and capital income. As they have accrued a large share of income gains, the incomes of the top 1 percent of households have pulled far away from the incomes of typical Americans. In 2007, average annual i

David Graeber: anthropologist, anarchist, financial analyst* By gregdowney Posted: October 15, 2011 Wall Street is in the grips of an 'occupation,' and activist and anthropologist, David Graeber, now at Goldsmiths, University of London, is in the centre of the action.  Graeber has been doing a few television and radio interviews of late (check here for his interview on ABC Radio National, Australia), talking about the organization of the Wall Street occupation as well as his new book, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House). The juxtaposition of Florida Governor Rick Scott's recent comments about anthropology and the fact that Graeber is offering what may be among the most penetrating and accessible analyses of an important dimension of the current global debt crisis is striking. Of course, maybe clear-eyed analysis of our current economic situation, and the ability to point out that other societies do perfectly well with other sorts of economic and political systems, is precisely the sort of academic work that Gov. Rick Scott thinks universities should give up.  After all, no one needs to understand why US firms are shedding jobs, or take a sober look at the current financial regime in the light of the 5,000-year history of debt.  Students should just put their heads down and do the sorts of degrees that will give them technical jobs.  Pay no attention to The Man behind the curtain! Graeber is doing exactly what many of us want university-based social and cultural anthropologists to do more of: not just doing outstanding, useful applied work (which is bloody brilliant, of course), but also showing how our distinctive intellectual perspectives - comparative, evolutionary, cross-cultural, critical, even deconstructive (and 'post-modern') - provide academic analyses with important, 'real world' implications. After all, part of the current problem in the global economy is not just that we have bad applications of economic theory-we have b

A Framing Memo for Occupy Wall Street by GEORGE LAKOFF on OCTOBER 19, 2011 in COMMUNICATION, NEWS, POLITICAL MIND I was asked weeks ago by some in the Occupy Wall Street movement to make suggestions for how to frame the movement. I have hesitated so far, because I think the movement should be framing itself. It's a general principle: Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you - the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself. About framing: It's normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act. In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it's wrong! Or because it doesn't matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda. Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is "deserving," defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this

May 1, 2012 Pt.1 A Call To Strike To friends who don't live in the US, or others who have not yet been touched by the call for a General Strike on this day, we write this short note, as a kind of update. Some of our earliest discussions in the space began with considerations of what could or could not be considered work; who is included and who is excluded when we talk about labor. And what constitutes labor today in this everywhere and nowhere paradigm of production. Moreover, we have reflected together on what could potentially constitute a political activity today? It is no surprise then that the most intensive global attempts at responses in recent memory come precisely when the living labor of humans is in its most deformed and devalued form, and political space everywhere appears the most foreclosed, by a logic that would prefer to reduce politics to a managerial task of order and administration. A call for a national general strike in the United States has happened perhaps only once, for May 1st, 1886 [to be expanded by historians?]. In our January retreat/seminar, The Crisis of Everything Everywhere, we had a session, "On the General Strike". We asked: How it could be deployed? What are our historical and political conceptions of the strike, how do they relate to our present contexts, and what forms of communication and solidarity are necessary to see the strike we want to see? Who calls for the strike, who strikes, what do we do during the strike, and is there an AFTER the strike? What activities do we expect to precede this call, and what do we expect to follow? Can we have a general strike which is not instrumentalized, but is a political act, a step towards definitive refusal or revolt? The efficacy of this meeting was to be found neither in its valor for organizing, nor the theories we developed together. Its efficacy came in its indiscernibility between intellectual work, cultural work, and political work. To

We Power From Zuccotti Park to Main Street, people's yearnings spark new possibilities for a shift from me to we BY JULIE RISTAU & ALEXA BRADLEYSHARE Print Occupy Wall Street and related actions across the country overturned the conventional wisdom that most Americans passively accept a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. There's genuine surprise among journalists and other experts that thousands of people from all walks of life are camping out in the autumn chill to protest Wall Street greed. And there's shock that their actions are supported by a majority of Americans. A recent Time magazine poll found that 54 percent view the Occupy Wall Street protests favorably (23 percent do not). Compare that to the 27 percent in the same poll who view the Tea Party favorably. Until now, it's been easy to think that no cares what's happening because there were no protests in the streets. But the dynamics of social change are more complicated that that, as shown in this essay by On the Commons Co-director Julie Ristau and Program Director Alexa Bradley. Although written before the Wall Street occupation, it pinpoints the power of our yearnings to set the stage for future action. We live under the market paradigm today, they write, in which "people's social, political, and even personal consciousness is conditioned by their belief in the market as the only efficient system to organize society." That means it takes time for many people to respond to events like the economic crisis, and that when they do it comes out first as feelings, not as policy proposals. But three years after the crash, there's an upsurge in outrage about the richest one percent high-jacking the U.S. economy-and rising interest in the commons as a way to find our way of this mess. - Jay Walljasper Adapted from the On the Commons book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons. Young and old together, we will not be moved. (Credit: By "David Shan

Can Communities Reclaim the Right to Say "No"? Many communities trying to keep fracking, drilling, or big box stores out are finding they don't have the legal right to say no. Their response? Take on the very structure of law. Document Actions Email Print Feed  Share by Mari Margil posted Aug 24, 2011 Strong community activism led the Pittsburgh City Council to pass an ordinance banning drilling for natural gas within city limits. Photo by Parker Waichman Alonso It's no wonder that many communities want nothing to do with the natural gas drilling procedure known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." The practice, which involves pumping chemical-laced water underground at high pressure, results in millions of gallons of frack wastewater that's been found to contain dangerous levels of radioactivity, carcinogenic chemicals, and highly corrosive salts. Last year, 16 cattle died after being exposed to the wastewater; a famous scene in the documentary Gasland shows a resident lighting his tap water on fire. But communities trying to protect their drinking water from fracking haven't found it at all easy to do. No Right to Self-Government? In June, the city council of Morgantown, West Virginia-which draws its drinking water from the Monongahela River, just downstream of a new natural gas well-passed a ban on horizontal drilling and fracking within one mile of city limits. Two days later, a company seeking to drill sued Morgantown, claiming that because drilling is regulated by the state, it wasn't within the city's authority to keep fracking out.  When communities try to exercise authority to protect themselves, they are met with threats of corporate lawsuits and state efforts to override their decisions. In August, a circuit court agreed, invalidating the city's ordinance. In her decision, Judge Susan Tucker ruled that municipalities are but "creatures of the state" without jurisdiction to legislate on drilling or fracking wi

Transcript: Slavoj Zizek at St. Mark's Bookshop BY SARAHANA » Fake leftist melancholia; obscene Zionist pact. Slavoj Zizek at St. Mark's Bookshop First part of the talk is a theoritical discussion on melancholy, mourning and prohibition, addressing Judith Butler and Freud. It's followed by a discussion on Wall Streets protests, including (1) a dissection of Anne Applebaum's recent column in the Washington Post that claims democracy is incompatible with globalization, but also that the Occupy protests (which react to the consequences of globalized economy) are incompatible with democracy (2) the idea of a fake leftist melancholia as it applies to these protests (3) the need to preserve the vacuum the protests create, by refusing to engage in a dialogue with those in power, just yet. Later parts of the unscripted talk discuss the obscene pact of Zionism that allows pro-Zionism and anti-Semitism to co-exist in the same group (like American Christian fundamentalists). Towards the very end, there's a brief mention of the anticipated pact between the Egyptian army and the Muslim Brotherhood. October 26, 2011 at St. Mark's Bookshop. -- TRANSCRIPT -- I will simply begin by certain historical observations. You probably notice how some people, and I think precisely the wrong people, started to celebrate the Wall Street events as a new form of social carnival: so nice, we have there this horizontal organization, no terror, we are free, egalitarian, everybody can say whatever he or she wants, and so on, all that stuff. It is as if some kind of a carnivalesque collective experience is returning. And this tendency, much more than here, is alive, as you can expect, on the West Coast. A couple of days ago at Stanford they told me that - the other Sunday, about 9 days ago - that in the center of San Francisco, a guy speaking on behalf of those who occupy, said something like, "They are asking you what's your program. They don't get it. We don't have a program. W

The Occupy Movement vs. The Tea Party Posted on October 19th, 2011 by The Public Professor Why is it that the Tea Party, an American movement founded nearly three years ago, seems completely incapable of reaching beyond U.S. borders, while Occupy Wall Street is an American movement that transformed into a genuine international phenomenon within just a matter of weeks? If we can manage to avoid partisan accusations and snide quips, an honest assessment reveals core similarities between the Tea Party and Occupy.  Both have emerged as genuine social protest movements.  Both are concerned with the current economic malaise.  Both vent their anger at powerful institutions.  And both became tremendously successful, garnering millions of supporters in a relatively brief period of time.  Yet one has remained an exclusively American movement, while the other is quickly spreading around the entire world. One obvious explanation is the symbols and framing devices adopted by the Tea Party movement, beginning with its very name.  The Tea Party has proudly draped itself in American symbolism, which of course limits its appeal elsewhere.  But that cannot explain it completely. Symbols are flexible.  People can adapt.  A genuine anti-government movement will hop borders.  Just look at the Arab Spring. What's more, the Tea Party's initial focus had the potential to be an international draw.  Indeed, some of the issues driving the Tea Party are quite similar to the ones fueling the Occupy movement, particularly rage against the economic mess.  People elsewhere in the world could have adopted the Tea Party movement and refashioned it with their own national or even international symbolism.  Greece in particular is a nation where citizens have very real reasons to be outraged at their government's irresponsible economic policies. But unlike the Arab Spring, the Tea Party anti-government movement has not crossed any national borders, and it almost certainly never will.

In this Oct. 18, 2011 photo, an Occupy Wall Street protestor speaks into microphone for a live-streaming online interview at the media area in Zuccotti Park in New York. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)   From its inception, the Occupy movement has had a contentious relationship with the mainstream media. On September 17, a few hours into the first day of the occupation, as a couple of hundred people assembled in Zuccotti Park, some demonstrators were already complaining of a "media blackout." I was there, as an enthusiastic participant, yet even I wasn't convinced the event was particularly newsworthy: in May more than 10,000 people had marched through nearby streets airing similar grievances; a month later protesters camped for two weeks outside City Hall as part of a protest called Bloombergville. Yet accusations flew through the Twittersphere. The traditional media are ignoring us! Why aren't we big news? About the Author Astra Taylor Astra Taylor is the director of the documentary films Zizek! and Examined Life. She has written for Monthly Review,... Also by the Author Occupy Wall Street on Your Street (Occupy Wall Street) Banks trying to foreclose on homes are surprisingly vulnerable to direct action-a fact that Occupy Our Homes intends to exploit. Astra Taylor 7 comments The Other Prison Population (Movements, Disability Rights Movement) Disabled people march on Washington to protest policies that keep them out of sight, out of mind. Astra Taylor Related Topics Entertainment Religion Social Issues Technology War Before long, Occupy Wall Street would be. When protesters managed to hold their ground through the weekend, sleeping on hard concrete and eating pizza donated by well-wishers from around the world, reporters began dutifully to file stories. But the charge of a media "blackout" persisted until September 24, when shaky video of several young women being cordoned off and pepper-sprayed point-blank by a white-shirted police officer was up

Occupy's Expressive Impulse by Todd GitlinTweetFacebookEmail Matthew Noah Smith has written a most cogent critique of Occupy's current direction-its prime direction, anyway. I agree with almost everything he says, not least his pithy summary: "Occupy is all play but no power." But how did Occupy get here? And what's the alternative? As I show in Occupy Nation, the movement's core has been more expressive than strategic from the beginning. This core, those who clustered around Zuccotti Park and other such hubs, and remain the reliables who make up the so-called Working Groups, are not the majority of the demonstrators who turn out on major occasions (Oct. 5, Oct. 15, Nov. 17, May 1)-far from it-but they are the movement's beating heart. They take the initiative. They make plans. They act. They are not 99 percent of the 99 percent. Much of the initiative that surfaced so volcanically last fall came from a sort of counterculture, an anarchist post-punk core-often of anarcho-syndicalist and Situationist inspiration-that proclaimed itself "horizontalist" and "anti-capitalist" and "revolutionary" and had no qualms about doing so. Its theatrical elements were not incidental; they were central. The General Assemblies, with their "human mic" rituals, were the way in which the movement's core displayed itself to itself. What it created was, as Matthew Smith says, an aesthetic. The statement they made was: We're here, horizontal, improvising. We want to secede, more or less, from the market economy. We abhor the capitalist organization of work. We want to pool our skills. We ourselves, the way we relate to each other, constitute our demand, our agenda, our program. The movement, well aware of its theatrical potential, was superficially visible to outsiders, bystanders, and the media, but those forms of its visibility weren't its central point-the movement's most binding transaction, let's say-and bystanders and mainstrea

Occupy the Commons How the values of collaboration and sharing fuel the impact of Occupy protests BY JAY WALLJASPERSHARE Print Image from Kevin Hansen's video "Real Democracy and Youth Decisionmaking at Occupy Wall Street" Rather than an isolated band of protesters, the Occupy encampments depend on the continuing support of the broader community to keep going. The #Occupy movements that spread across the nation this fall are taking citizen activism in a new direction-toward the commons. The protests create actual commons, shared public spaces that have become both a symbol and an example of the more cooperative, hopeful future that 99 percent of Americans want to see. That's why these action have been able to shift the political debate by galvanizing public support for a more equitable economy. And rather than an isolated band of protesters, the Occupy encampments depend on the continuing support of the broader community to keep going. And as filmmaker Kevin Hansen shows in this new video, occupiers are also experimenting with new forms of collaborative, commons-based, genuinely democratic decisionmaking based on mutual consensus and inclusiveness. And rather than an isolated band of protesters, the POSTED NOVEMBER 8, 2011 COMMONS STRATEGIESCOMMONS-BASED SOLUTIONSCOMMUNITY LIFECONSENSUS DECISIONMAKINGECONOMY AND MARKETSKEVIN HANSENOCCUPY MOVEMENTSOCCUPY WALL STREETPOLITICS AND GOVERNMENT Disqus Like Dislike Login Add New Comment Post as … Showing 0 comments M Subscribe by email S RSS LEGACY COMMENTS Another process, very similar Submitted by burke00 on Sun, 2011-11-13 19:24. Another process, very similar to that described in the video, is sociocracy, or dynamic governance. Maybe the OWS folks are on to this process, or they've found some closely related consensus-based approach. Of course, being an open and new community, with a political agenda, Occupy groups are at risk of fraudulent and malicious trespassers infiltrating the process

Protesters Need a Plan, Not Just a Complaint November 15, 2011 Lech Wałęsa San Francisco Chronicle Like millions of others around the world, I have been watching this year's protests in the Arab world, Europe and the United States. What has struck me the most as I have followed the protests on television and in the social media is that the protesters generally know that the status quo should not be tolerated, but are a lot less clear and unified about what they want to replace it with. In the war of ideas, it's not enough just to be against something; you have to be for something that is sound as well. Before you set out to alter the status quo, you ought to know how to replace it-and you need to be convinced, intellectually and in your heart, that the new system will actually be better. When we began our protests at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk in 1980-protests that triggered the eventual collapse of Soviet communism throughout Central and Eastern Europe-we didn't have the benefit of the Internet and social media. What we had instead was a unifying idea: that men and woman have a God-given right to be free and that government has no right to deny them this freedom. We were fighting for individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom to organize unions, freedom to congregate in public places and express our views, freedom of the press, and freedom to contract, own property, have enterprises and work to uplift the lives of our families and communities. Those who opposed the status quo in Poland and elsewhere behind the Iron Curtain were great in number. That was the source of our strength: when we realized we weren't alone and that others shared our concerns and views. This empowered us, as it empowered the protests in the Arab world, and today's protests in the United States and Europe. Today's protests seem more focused on the problems that are plaguing many of the world's advance

Occupy Wall Street vs. Jobs by Michael D. Tanner This article appeared on National Review (Online) on October 12, 2011. PRINT PAGE CITE THIS   Sans Serif   Serif Share with your friends: ShareThis The last week brought us a striking contrast that tells us much about the current debate over the direction of this country. On one hand were the perpetually aggrieved protestors of Occupy Wall Street. While much of the media, desperate to find a liberal counterpart to the Tea Party (remember coverage of the state-house takeover in Wisconsin?), tried to pretend that this was an organic and leaderless uprising by middle America, the reality was that most of the demonstrators were the same motley crew that regularly shows up to demonstrate against the World Bank or G8 meetings, their ranks bolstered by union activists, MoveOn.org, and the Obama front group Organizing for America - not to mention the usual collection of filthy-rich movie stars who flew in on private jets and then climbed into waiting limousines to show up to denounce the filthy rich. But while Roseanne Barr was suggesting that the rich should be beheaded and demonstrators were making such reasonable demands as the forgiveness of all debt, much of the rest of the world was mourning the death of Steve Jobs, the filthy-rich businessman who was responsible for all those iPhones and iPads that the iPod-sporting protestors used to organize their demonstrations. [W]hat government jobs program has created as many net new jobs as Jobs? Jobs certainly was rich. Estimates suggest he was worth more than $7 billion. But it's important to realize that he didn't start out that way. Jobs's story was a quintessential American one. Born poor (and out of wedlock), he achieved success through hard work and brilliance. Along the way he failed sometimes. But when he did, he didn't beg Washington for a bailout. Instead he frequently put his own capital at risk, taking chances, because entrepreneurship truly i

Occupy the Commons How the values of collaboration and sharing fuel the success of Occupy protests BY JAY WALLJASPERSHARE Print Image from Kevin Hansen's video "Real Democracy and Youth Decisionmaking at Occupy Wall Street" Rather than an isolated band of protesters, the Occupy encampments depend on the continuing support of the broader community to keep going. The #Occupy movements that spread across the nation this fall are taking citizen activism in a new direction-toward the commons. The protests create actual commons, shared public spaces that have become both a symbol and an example of the more cooperative, hopeful future that 99 percent of Americans want to see. That's why these action have been able to shift the political debate by galvanizing public support for a more equitable economy. And rather than an isolated band of protesters, the Occupy encampments depend on the continuing support of the broader community to keep going. And as filmmaker Kevin Hansen shows in this new video, occupiers are also experimenting with new forms of collaborative, commons-based, genuinely democratic decisionmaking based on mutual consensus and inclusiveness. And rather than an isolated band of protesters, the POSTED NOVEMBER 8, 2011

Underlying Ideology of the 99 Filed under: American Revolution, Land Recourse, Neo-feudalism, Reformism Can't Work - Tags: occupy wall street - Russ @ 2:53 am > Rortybomb had this interesting analysis of the "Ideology of the We Are 99% Tumblr." Konczal ran the HTML text which accompanies many of the images through a program to assemble data on age and keywords. He found two age clusters, around 20 and 27.   The 25 most common "words of interest" all involve the necessities of a decent life (except that several like "jobs" and "debt", the two most common, are endemic to capitalism and other economic hierarchies). One important finding is that none of the key words are characteristically "consumerist". This plus the overall impression of the images is that, contrary to the fears or scoffing of detractors, the 99ers are not thinking primarily in terms of being gipped consumers who just want to go back to the 1990s. They're not thinking in terms of a more inclusive neoliberalism whose crimes would continue but merely trickle more of the loot to them, the way previous more fortunate consumers allegedly benefited. So we can take this as a piece of evidence which is promising in light of the previous discussion on this blog of consumerism as a movement.    Instead, they're thinking in terms of survival amid permanent dispossession. Their first concern is to be free of the oppression of unemployment and debt, which are the only modes of exploitation the decrepit system has left. So although they don't know it yet, anything they say about jobs and debt is already tantamount to the call to abolish Wall Street and debt as such.   Indeed, Konczal himself acknowledges but only dimly envisions the radicality of the implicit ideology here.   With all due respect to DeBoer, the demands I found aren't the ones of the go-go 90s-00s, but instead far more ancient cry, one of premodernity and antiquity. Let's bring up a favorite quote around

PETER BREGMAN Peter Bregman is a strategic advisor to CEOs and their leadership teams. His latest book is 18 Minutes: Find Your Focus, Master Distraction, and Get the Right Things Done. To receive an email when he posts, click here. One Thing I've Learned from the Wall Street Protests 1:43 PM Tuesday November 1, 2011  | Comments (57) T During a bleak, cold winter in New York City, a park is occupied by thousands who stand there day and night for weeks. Nobody knows precisely what these occupiers represent, but people are mesmerized by them. Not just the city, but the country and beyond. Articles appear in papers around the world as people react with mixed emotions spanning surprise, admiration, ridicule, frustration, pride, and even fear. I am talking about The Gates: 7,500 bright orange fabric and steel sculptures erected by artists Christo and Jeanne Claude in 2005 that serpentined 23 miles of Central Park's walking paths. I loved The Gates. The exhibit was visually stunning, creating the sensation of a river flowing through the snow-covered landscape. But what I loved most about them - perhaps their greatest impact - was the conversations they sparked. I would guess that no other art exhibit ever got as much popular attention as The Gates. People who would never otherwise think much about it were pondering and discussing the question "What is art?" Sparking Conversations. That, too, is perhaps the greatest impact of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Protestors have been criticized for their lack of clarity. What, precisely, are they protesting? From what I could tell when I was at Zuccotti Park, it was everything from corporate greed to unemployment to tax loopholes to foreclosures to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to specific companies to bank ATM fees to unfair distribution of wealth, and a lot more. But, in this case, lack of clarity might be something to celebrate instead of criticize. Because, the truth is, we all have more questions than ans

 was honored to be invited to speak at Occupy Wall Street on Thursday night. Since amplification is (disgracefully) banned, and everything I say will have to be repeated by hundreds of people so others can hear (a.k.a. "the human microphone"), what I actually say at Liberty Plaza will have to be very short. With that in mind, here is the longer, uncut version of the speech. I love you. And I didn't just say that so that hundreds of you would shout "I love you" back, though that is obviously a bonus feature of the human microphone. Say unto others what you would have them say unto you, only way louder. Yesterday, one of the speakers at the labor rally said: "We found each other." That sentiment captures the beauty of what is being created here. A wide-open space (as well as an idea so big it can't be contained by any space) for all the people who want a better world to find each other. We are so grateful. If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are panicked and desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies: privatizing education and social security, slashing public services, getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power. Amidst the economic crisis, this is happening the world over. And there is only one thing that can block this tactic, and fortunately, it's a very big thing: the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say "No. We will not pay for your crisis." That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally it has made its way to the square mile where the crisis began. "Why are they protesting?" ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: "What took you so long?" "We've been wondering when you were going to show up." And most of all: "Welcome." Many people have drawn parallels bet